In-game micro-transactions alive in Dead Space 3

Ability to pay for convenience can have troubling implications for game design.

At this point, gamers are used to free-to-play games that make most of their revenue from "pay-for-convenience" features. These games essentially let you quickly purchase features that you'd usually have to unlock through hours of gameplay, in effect letting you spend your money instead of your time. Now, it seems, that "convenience" is starting to creep into traditional, single-player retail titles like the upcoming Dead Space 3.

Eurogamerdiscovered a pay-to-upgrade option during some recent hands-on time with the game, noting a button prompt for "downloadable content" when crafting new weapons from component resources. Those resources can be collected normally in the course of the game, but impatient players can lay down real cash in the in-game store to get around that gameplay requirement.

Associate Producer Yara Khoury was quick to explain to Eurogamer that the game would never require the player to spend extra money to get certain items, and that you can't simply spend your way to the best weapon as soon as you start the game.

"There are a lot of weapon parts that are only available to buy later in the game, unless you're playing through it again [on New Game Plus]," Khoury said.

Still, it's a bit off-putting to see a big-budget third-person shooter letting players pay to skip the "grind" of resource collection. It's a bit like having an optional, built-in cheat code (or using a Game Genie-style device), except players have to pay the developer every time they want to use the cheat.

It's one thing to have this kind of "pay-to-win-faster" option in a free-to-play casual title, where the business model pretty much demands you offer in-game perks to make any revenue at all. It's quite another to try to tack the business model onto a AAA single-player (or cooperative) game that already retails for $60.

The pay-for-convenience model has been creeping into some big-name online titles for a while now. Subscription-free MMOs like Guild Wars 2 and The Old Republic let players pay for convenience as well as vanity items. The option is also showing up in competitive multiplayer modes for primarily single-player games like EA's Mass Effect 3 and Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed 3, which let players buy consumable improvements rather than earning them through matches.

But the pay-for-convenience model has run into its fair share of controversy even in the online realm. Back in 2011, CCP had to fight back a player riot when a leaked document suggested it might let people pay for gameplay items in its popular Eve Online.

Online or single-player, simply adding pay-for-convenience to a standard game has the potential to affect game design decisions. This can happen overtly, as we've seen with the kinds of mindless, casual clickfests that still dominate Facebook and mobile revenue charts. Developers routinely design those kinds of games to maximize things like ARPU and Lifetime Network Value rather than, I don't know—fun?

Even aside from that extreme, though, offering in-game incentives in exchange for money can create a perverse incentive for developers to actually design games to be more annoying to the player. After all, the less enjoyable the grind is, the more likely players are to pay the developer additional money just to skip it, right? There are limits to how far this concept can go—if a retail game is nothing but annoying, pay-to-skip portions, no one will want to buy it in the first place, for instance—but even at the margins, it can cause subtle alterations in the way a game plays.

Or maybe I'm just being old-fashioned. Maybe we'll look back in 20 years and wonder how the business of gaming managed to work without games constantly offering the player the opportunity to buy more power at any time with a tiny, quick, almost invisible transaction from their GoogleZonPal account (powered by SteamOS 6). And maybe the gamers of the future will see that as an inherent part of the way games should be played. From our perspective in the present, though, it feels a little troubling.

Promoted Comments

What a bunch of whiners in this set of comments. "Why in my days we used to have to jump 50 platforms in a critically-timed pattern to get the OopmaLoompa Sword... and we loved it! Now, these damnable youngsters just buy the sword. Grumble grumble grumble."

Personally, I don't have a problem with being given choices and options.

PS: It's only "nickel and dime"-ing if you don't value the game in the first place. I've gladly paid for DLCs, addons, content where a) the game already has good value for the money, and b) the game added matches the value required.

Didn't Dead Space 2 already do this with suits and weapons you could buy from the start?

I feel like this is a little different from that kind of DLC, which is set aside from the standard game. In this case, you are buying resources that are a core part of the "real" game, rather than "extras" that are just nice to have.

Didn't Dead Space 2 already do this with suits and weapons you could buy from the start?

I was about to say the same thing. I think I had the super-duper "game of the year" edition on sale from Steam and in addition to getting some bonus for having played DS1, you could buy fully powered up items right from the start. Kinda ruins the gameplay a little bit.

The last two Tales of... JRPGs released in the US (Vesperia and Graces f) also had the ability to spend cash to buy in-game boosts. Packs of gold, skills, items, and item creation materials for a few bucks a pop.

If your game is so dull that people will pay to skip large sections of it, then I think there is a problem. Of course, if you bought a game and then pay to skip large sections of it, then maybe you need to reexamine your choices.

Why do people care? Really? If you don't want to pay then don't. You don't have to pay to enjoy the game. So what is the problem again?

Kyle Orland wrote:

coldandtired wrote:

Didn't Dead Space 2 already do this with suits and weapons you could buy from the start?

I feel like this is a little different from that kind of DLC, which is set aside from the standard game. In this case, you are buying resources that are a core part of the "real" game, rather than "extras" that are just nice to have.

But you don't have to pay. You can grind it out like any other game where resource collection is a game feature. Mass Effect 2 for example. Resource collection and management. So again, what is the problem?

Is there any difference between "Pay-To-Win" and "pay-for-convenience" other than an attempt by sleazy marketing types to make it sound less noxious?

Yes, I think there's a difference. "Pay-To-Win" means you cannot win without buying some virtual doohickey. "Pay-for-convenience" means you can pay for that virtual doohickey to win, or you can earn it by grinding for hours, days, weeks, or months. Of course, at the extreme, "pay-for-convenience" asymptotically approaches "pay-to-win".

Not only online, but very much a part of the growing money making bracket of iOS and Android games. While I can tolerate those to a degree, both due to no lack of shortage of comparable games, but even in cases where I pay a dollar, I'm not out too much cash to be a little annoyed. For main stream $60 games though? No way, no how. If the game industry to looking to alienate players like me, that's a great way to start.

Not only online, but very much a part of the growing money making bracket of iOS and Android games. While I can tolerate those to a degree, both due to no lack of shortage of comparable games, but even in cases where I pay a dollar, I'm not out too much cash to be a little annoyed. For main stream $60 games though? No way, no how. If the game industry to looking to alienate players like me, that's a great way to start.

Then don't pay for the extra easy of the collection feature. You don't have to. That being the meaning of "optional".

If we're going to move to a game design paradigm that focuses on adding in-game transactions, it's important to look at the effects this has on gameplay. For example, a game like Fallout 3 is designed around not only the RPG elements, but also things like inventory management and survival. If they were to add microtransactions to Fallout 3, the game would almost undermine itself by allowing players to have a fallback should they make a decision that would cause them to be close to death. I know this may not be the case for Dead Space 3, but as far as game design goes, it's a terrible precedent to set. Constraints and affordances in-game shouldn't be determined by your wallet out-of-game.

Why do people care? Really? If you don't want to pay then don't. You don't have to pay to enjoy the game. So what is the problem again?

The problem, as the article indicated is that it really screws with the motivations of the developers. Now there is an incentive to put really long, boring, grinding parts into every game so that you can sell the shortcut. Sure, you don't have to play, but as it becomes more and more common, it gets harder to avoid.

I remember back when earning items through nothing but hard work and skilled, practiced gameplay was the only way to do it. It felt like more of an accomplishment. Now you can just buy your way to victory.

I won't be buying this game just because of this. Even though I like Dead Space, it'll irk me knowing that at any time I could just buy my way to the items I need (even if I don't actually do it), it cheapens the feeling of acquiring them through playing properly, so it diminishes my desire to "accomplish" getting them.

It would be like telling a marathon runner "You have two choices. Either run the marathon and win the trophy yourself, or just give me $20 and I'll hand you the trophy right now." Even if he chooses to run the marathon on his own two feet and earn it properly, it won't feel like as big an accomplishment, because he knows that at any time he could have just bought it. Not only that, he knows that an average Joe with no training whatsoever, someone who could be completely out of shape and put no work into preparation for competing, could just buy the trophy. If that doesn't kill the satisfaction of knowing only you could win because you had to train hard and work for it, then I don't know what would. Knowing someone else could get the same thing as you, even if you had the self-satisfaction of getting it the "proper" way, from doing no work at all would destroy your ambition to bother. At least that's how it would be for me.

Another example. I play Guild Wars 2, and the big thing is for everyone to work on acquiring a Legendary weapon. I've decided from the start I'm not even going to bother working for it. If I ever really wanted one, I could just buy it off the Trading Post. Sure, it's really costly, but if I wanted it badly enough, I could just buy it. But knowing that is also why I'm not going to do either, not bother working towards it myself, nor bother buying it right out. I'm just not going to bother. You see some players who have them and think "He either worked hard for it and deserves kudos, or he just bought it." There's no way to know for sure, and even if you ask, they could have just bought it and are lying that they put in all the time and effort for it. There's no sure way to know. But even if there was, if you can just buy your way to something that normally you could also just work hard for, it just cheapens any real sense of accomplishment associated with acquiring that rare item no one else has... But can own just by plunking down some cash and calling it a day.

I'm going to start steering clear of these games, although it might prove to be impossible as time goes on. I really don't like games begging for more money soon after I've unwrapped the shrink wrap.

Yup. That might finally spell the end of gaming for me. When I buy a game, I want all the game's features included and enabled. I'm already irked that Bordelands 2 has "keys" that can be obtained from their Facebook page. I don't do Facebook and I don't want to pay for game extras, unless it's a full blown expansion/DLC.

wjousts wrote:

Tom West wrote:

Most of these games need an option that for $20 or so, you instantly win, saving busy users time and effort.

Yes. Even better, how about $50 regular version or $70 for an already completed game? Just pop the disc in and watch the ending cut scene!

Drop rates are easy to manipulate and to increase profits, er, increase customer satisfaction by allowing the already paying customers the "convenience" to pay for those now harder to find items. That's why.

Why do people care? Really? If you don't want to pay then don't. You don't have to pay to enjoy the game. So what is the problem again?

The problem, as the article indicated is that it really screws with the motivations of the developers. Now there is an incentive to put really long, boring, grinding parts into every game so that you can sell the shortcut. Sure, you don't have to play, but as it becomes more and more common, it gets harder to avoid.

I guess we can make that kind of judgment call when the game comes out then.

If a developer were to create a competitive, hardcore game where the goal was to explicitly NOT allow micro-transactions of any sort, and the only way to acquire the most awesome, powerful items was by playing through a really hard level or something in order to acquire it, and you could show it off to other players as a true gaming accomplishment... I would buy that game just to support the developer, even if it wasn't my cup of tea of genre.

Yeah, this stuff sucks. I shouldn't have to see it in a big title. Although I was a sucker and paid $10 for the N7 Deluxe Upgrade to get the hoodie and 40 minute DLC mission. How hard would it have been to make that DLC take 3 hours?

If they were to add microtransactions to Fallout 3, the game would almost undermine itself by allowing players to have a fallback should they make a decision that would cause them to be close to death.

To be completely fair, a fallback has always existed. It's called a saved game (with the exception of the new Sim City which, apparently, doesn't have one - maybe EA will let you buy one?).

Is there any difference between "Pay-To-Win" and "pay-for-convenience" other than an attempt by sleazy marketing types to make it sound less noxious?

You're correct to a point, but what about a busy 40-something who loved to play games but cannot now because of the lack of time? When he does have a chance to game, he jumps online and gets his ass handed to him (not fun, agree?) by the teens who level up naturally, by ploughing hours into the game. If he likes the game and can afford the paid upgrade to be more competitive, why not?

On the other hand, back in the days game like Unreal Tournament offered any weapon pickup to every player - and that was a great method. We could go back to that, but then the shareholders won;t be happy about the "potential lost revenue"

Why do people care? Really? If you don't want to pay then don't. You don't have to pay to enjoy the game. So what is the problem again?

The problem, as the article indicated is that it really screws with the motivations of the developers. Now there is an incentive to put really long, boring, grinding parts into every game so that you can sell the shortcut. Sure, you don't have to play, but as it becomes more and more common, it gets harder to avoid.

Even more that that, it encourages bad game design. The developer isn't focusing on making a great game, with balanced challenge & fun, but instead is focusing on ways to make the game lacking so as to nickel & dime the consumer.

Why do people care? Really? If you don't want to pay then don't. You don't have to pay to enjoy the game. So what is the problem again?

The problem, as the article indicated is that it really screws with the motivations of the developers. Now there is an incentive to put really long, boring, grinding parts into every game so that you can sell the shortcut. Sure, you don't have to play, but as it becomes more and more common, it gets harder to avoid.

Money making gimmicks like these are slowly ruining video games. It's even worse when they allow players in multiplayer games to pay real money for exclusive weapons and power ups.

This is horrible news. EA better offer an option to disable the in game store. I don't want a damn advertisement inside the game itself telling me to spend real money.

The artificial $60 price point for PC is already intollerable. This just makes things worse.

The only way to affect change is by voting with your wallet. Do not buy this game via Origin. That is pure 100% profit straight to EA. Buying retail gives EA less profit. And wait to purchase the game. Wait for a $40 or $30 price point.

This sort of thing sends a message to EA they can read loud and clear. Paying launch day prices for a game with these flaws just reinforces to EA what they can get away with.

"Back in 2011, CCP had to fight back a player riot when a leaked document suggested it might let people play for gameplay items in its popular Eve Online."

"play" = "pay"?

Well they already do that. they've been doing that for a while know. That's what the whole Plex system is. I think it's funny. They will ban players for paying other players real money for in game items yet they are 100% OK when you pay CCP for in game money to buy items.

Kyle Orland / Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in Pittsburgh, PA.